1985 (7) TMI 236 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Denial of natural justice.
2. Validity of the adjudication order.
3. Merits of remanding the matter for de novo consideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Natural Justice:

The appellants contended that the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs was illegal due to gross violations of the principles of natural justice. They argued that the adjudicating authority disregarded the provisions of the Customs Act and suppressed material facts favorable to the appellants, rendering the order void ab initio. The appellants highlighted several procedural lapses: the failure to provide copies of test reports and statements of Central Excise Officers, the lack of response to their request for an extension of time to reply to the show cause notice, and the absence of a personal hearing.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' contentions, noting that the Additional Collector did not fix a date for personal hearing and failed to respond to the appellants' requests. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 124 of the Customs Act, which embodies the principle of audi alteram partem (no person shall be condemned unheard), was not adhered to. This section mandates that before confiscating goods or imposing penalties, the concerned person must be given notice, an opportunity to make a written representation, and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

2. Validity of the Adjudication Order:

The Tribunal scrutinized the adjudication order and concluded that it suffered from several infirmities. The Additional Collector's order of confiscation and imposition of penalties was passed ex parte, without any discussion of evidence or consideration of the appellants' requests. The Tribunal noted that the Additional Collector did not distinguish between evidence and allegations and failed to address the appellants' letters requesting an extension of time and copies of documents. The Tribunal concluded that the order was passed without proper consideration of the issues involved, rendering it invalid.

3. Merits of Remanding the Matter for De Novo Consideration:

The Tribunal considered whether the matter should be remanded for de novo consideration or merely set aside the adjudication order. The respondent's representative conceded that the records did not indicate any date fixed for personal hearing and that no replies were sent to the appellants' letters. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention that the customs officers and the Additional Collector acted mala fide, attributing the lapses to negligence and ignorance.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in adjudication proceedings, noting that the procedure followed in such proceedings is different from that in courts of law. It is fundamental that the person sought to be penalized should be informed of the statements of witnesses and documents relied upon by the department. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, warranting a remand for de novo consideration.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Additional Collector was directed to afford the appellants a reasonable opportunity to inspect documents, take extracts, and be heard in the matter, in compliance with the principles of natural justice as embodied in Section 124 of the Customs Act.